 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
|
(...) assumptions (IE 'are you still beating your wife' type questions)... and given that you HAD to answer ALL the questions, it was rather tricky to figure out what the heck to answer. Would I rather be/meet my favorite footballer? (I don't have a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) You are correct that independent corroboration is vital in verifying scientific observation. It is to the serious discredit of the "gay scientist" that no one else has made an equivalent finding, so we are better off suspending final judgment (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
This seems like as good a place as any to jump in. The research i've done shows that a gay scientist found evidence of a gay gene, but no one has been able to duplicate his results. In scientific research, that is a very serious thing. It may have (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Gay-o-meter (Was Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!)
|
|
(...) meter told me to "Loosen up mate, Women like softer edges" or some such. Which is ironic, since most women consider me rather sensitive. I dunno. ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Gotta agree with Chris - the desperation seems a bit more on the other side. (...) A propensity for "gayness" may be in someone's gene, it may not. I don't discount it, but I don't accept it out of hand, either. I've been more of the opinion (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
|
(...) I did not mean to imply it would change your sexulaity. :) (...) I'm one of those cynics that thinks big homophobes have something to hide... :) Fun aside, the test illustrates a simple, but often overlooked, point: there are more than three (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
|
(...) Why would you advise this? It's obviously a silly thing. I mean, it's cute and aparently I'm 35% gay, but I don't think it has any bearing on anything. I don't get your need to consult...what's the deal with that? Chris (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
|
What does it really matter? If people are happy that is a good thing. There was recently a "gay census" in the UK. It has been criticised for focusing on people who are "out", but it is still the most detailed revue of gay life in the UK. The main (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) There is a lot of talk in our media too. Most of it about foreign nationals living here planning acts in 3rd countries. They all seem top overlook the possibility that UK nationals may wish to plant bombs also... Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) Good questions. What is good about a time limit is that it will quickly remove "knee jerk" legislation. It will also should force bad legislation to be re-debated & perhaps modified/repealed. (...) Talking of your government, I heard that you (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) I have to say that that strikes me as a fundamentally selfish view. Repugnant as it may seem, I'm sure there would have been those who yesterday said of Israel "They'll understand now". When Israel retaliates, will they say, “They'll (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
My my. It is not often we see posts highligted here, you appear to have struck a chord with readers. I agree with a great deal of what you have said. However I think the genie is already out of the bottle on a number issues. (...) Why restrict (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: **snip of lots of sensible things** I hate to post a "me too," but Chris and I are so seldom in 100% agreement that I thought it was worth mentioning. Bravo to you, Chris, for a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) That's why they should all be in Burkhas. ;-) Chris (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
As far as i am concerned, the whole deate is moot. Not only that, but it is dangerous because of its potential impact on society. Also, the way the various quotes describe homosexuality leave the issue somewhat clouded. As i see it: - (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
As Chris alluded to, homosexuality falls under the realm of behavioral genetics and is probably an epigenetic process (e.g. acting above the level of the genes). Epigenetic processes are incredibally difficult to tease apart and complex ones such as (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) website. 'Cause we just don't have enough trouble of our own? ;-) (...) How can a question be logical or not? (...) I think you are looking through a tinted lense. It seems like a pretty evenhanded treatment to me. (...) You and this hound (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I would not necessarily assume you were anti-gay, although I might assume your stance is based primarily on belief rather than logic. (...) Well, here's the thing that gets me. I've never seen anyone give a convincing reason why anyone would (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
the following is a question and answer excerpt from a debate on another website. The questions seem to me very clear and logical. The answers, however, do not; sometimes they seem rather desperate. I find it very interesting that the person (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) Some people were already agitating for the freeing of slaves. The southern states would not accept such a change to their economy. I am pretty sure slaves were understood to be individuals with rights, denied them or not, what was asserted (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) I disagree. Two hundred years ago, as now, the rights of the individual *were* paramount, but the definition of individual was very different and was suited to the demands of the time. Would slave-dependent states have signed the Constitution (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
Ob. Lego: Yes, you should rush out and read Louis Sullivan's essay "The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered"! and then go build! Also interesting: his _Autobiography of an Idea_ and _System of Ornament_. (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
Speaking of reading, I suggest the anthology _An American Primer_ (Daniel J. Boorstin) for basic readings. Want Washington's Inaugral Address (to Congress) and Farewell Address? Jefferson's? John Adams' "What do we mean by the American Revolution?" (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ack, I deleted the subject line without having a good replacement.
|
|
(...) Sorry, but this made me arrrrggh: "more omnipresent". "Omni-" means "all," making it redundant. Of course, *I* knew what you meant, but I'm just an omnidork. (...) Unfortunately we're still in the mindset of "with enough safeguards we can (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) Well, if they were alive today -- I'd kiss Thomas Jefferson, shake hands with guys like Madison and Jay, and kick Hamilton in the pain zone (::sigh:: if only Burr had killed him sooner =oP). No arguments over the value of the Declaration, it (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
Hi Richard! (...) *Actually*, to be fair, the "American Way" as you define it is *much* more omnipresent in the Declaration of Independence than in the Constitution. By *far*. Read it and weep, bro - and while you're at it, get a copy of the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) The one in which the rights of the individual is ideally paramount. The one that enumerated those rights both in the body of the U.S. Constitution (basically a summary what the individual could expect the representative govt. to look and act (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
Hi John! First off, let me say - I hear you. I know what you're talking about (*and* Chris is right - you're speaking to the wrong crowd, people on lugnet are generally not crowd-followers(1)). I've seen it happen too as I was watching CNN lately. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) I suppose no sane courts would extradite without sound evidence. But even with sound evidence, it is a violation of basic principles of right to extradite suspects to a country in which they may face an "improper" justice. The recent events (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) The good parts, of course. Unequal sufferage of the law was (and still is) a problem with the implementation of 'The American Way' not a flaw in it. We should keep working to improve our inclusion of all people. I don't seek to replicate the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
I'm replying to bits of John's post as well as Chris'. (...) I think I understand your intended point here, but the notion that The American Way should be what it was 200 years ago is baseless and anachronistic. The American Way of 200 years ago was (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) the (...) the (...) have (...) months. And who will be in government when the time limit arrives? What's the chances they'll vote to extend it? (...) Our government passed an equally stupid bill regarding asylum seekers recently (with the help (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Whatever
|
|
Hello Larry, it was sad for me to see things escalate in this way. I have by far not seen Scott as negative as you did, even saw some valid points in his posts. But then, being German, I may not be able to read between the lines as much as you do. I (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) You mean over the past hundred years? It seems to me that today is the natural evolution of a hundred years of incrementally giving up the American way. (...) Yeah. From my informal discussion over the past two months, most people don't really (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) It should be noted that ->people<- of the United States rejected the current guy residing in the White House. The joke was that as soon as Dubya got power, his first words would be, "Let the executions begin." (...) CNN: America's New (and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) I think EU countries do not extradite where there is a chance of a death penalty anyway? ...perhaps OBL should come live in the EU? That aside, your point is an interesting one. Most of the new legislation allows for situations where there is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) Although our plight is not as bad as elsewhere, I'm certainty not happy with the legislation we are rushing through right now. A few hours is being spent setting aside laws which have worked well for >500 years. By Xmas the UK will have laws (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
(...) For what it's worth, Norwegian courts can probably not extradite a suspected terrorist to USA anymore. This is due to the fact that they can stand a chance of being convicted by rules which are in conflict with basic international principles (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Lego Beretta just won't die
|
|
(...) 4|\||) fr33|)0|\/| 0f 7yp1|\|9! (Perhaps the point has been taken a bit far now...) Fredrik (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The *real* Phantom Menace and the fall of the republic
|
|
Hi all, I have been observing recent events in the world, and i just have to say, the governments in some of the major western powers (UK, Canada, and especially the US)have lost their marbles completely. Most other parts of Europe seem to have (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
